[00:00:03]
>> I WELCOME YOU TO THE AUGUST 6TH,
[CALL TO ORDER]
2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM.
WILL YOU ALL PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 551071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING POSTED ITEMS IN THE SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING AGENDA AS ALLOWED BY LAW.
WE WILL BE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES.
IT'S NOW 6:18, EXECUTIVE SESSION HAS ENDED, AND I CALL US BACK INTO SESSION. MR. HENRY.
>> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
[COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST]
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN, AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL, OR POLICY INFORMATION.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> BILL LYLE, 1724 15TH PLACE.
I WANTED TO RESPOND TO, IF YOU WILL, A REBUTTAL TO THE LAST COMMENTS THAT I MADE.
BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU GUYS.
I MADE COMMENTS FROM THE TOP OF THE STAIRS, AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT, AND I WON'T DO THAT IN THE FUTURE.
I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS HERE, AND THEN WHEN THE TIME'S UP, I'LL BE QUIET.
GOING BACK TO THE TOPIC THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S THE CLASSIFICATION OF NEW AND UNLISTED USES.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD WRITE A USE THAT WAS NOT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE INTO EXISTENCE BY WAY OF A PD.
I'M PARAPHRASING MICHELLE D'ANDREA'S COMMENTS HERE BECAUSE I WON'T GET HIM EXACT.
BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT ON AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, YOU CAN WRITE IN A USE.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THE USE HAS TO ALREADY EXIST IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE STAFF REPORT SAID THAT THE USE DIDN'T EXIST IN THE ORDINANCE.
ARTICLE 14400 IS WHERE YOU GO FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF A NEW AND UNLISTED USES IS WHAT STAFF SAID THIS WAS.
0.1 SAYS, THE QUESTION CONCERNING ANY NEW OR UNLISTED USE SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION INTO WHICH SUCH USE SHALL BE PLACED.
THE REFERRAL OF THE USE INTERPRETATION QUESTION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT OF FACTS LISTING THE NATURE OF THE USE, AND WHETHER IT INVOLVES DWELLING ACTIVITY, SALES ON AND ON AND ON.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER THE NATURE AND DESCRIBE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED USE, AND ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE USES PERMITTED IN THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS AND DETERMINE THE ZONING DISTRICT OR DISTRICTS WITHIN WHICH SUCH USE SHOULD BE PERMITTED.
THE POINT HERE IS THAT SHALL IS USED FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES IN THIS CHAPTER, S-H-A-L-L.
ARTICLE 8 IS WHERE WE GET THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT TELLS US AT THE BEGINNING, IT SAYS, THE WORD SHALL IS MANDATORY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY.
YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IS WHAT THAT'S SAYING.
IT'S MANDATORY. THAT'S THE LANGUAGE.
I'M JUST READING WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, GUYS.
I THINK OUR ORDINANCE MATTERS.
I THINK WHAT YOU DO HERE MATTERS.
THE ONLY REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I THINK OUR LAWS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
I'VE TOLD MS. DAY SEVERAL TIMES.
>> I THINK REASONABLE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ THE ORDINANCE, AND FOLLOW IT, AND TRUST IT, AND BELIEVE THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW IT.
CAN YOU WRITE ONE USE INTO ANOTHER WITH A PD? YES. YOU CAN TAKE CORD OR COMMERCIAL AND WRITE MULTIFAMILY OVER THE TOP OF IT WITH AN OVERLAY DISTRICT.
[00:05:03]
YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN USE THAT DOESN'T EXIST AT ALL.IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHAT STAFF SAYS. THANK YOU.
>> THERE ARE NO MORE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[Items 1A. - 1C.]
>> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME, WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.
REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.
THE RESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM WITH THREE POINTS UNDER IT, I WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW EACH SPEAKER TO HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES INSTEAD OF BREAKING IT OUT INTO THREE MINUTE SEGMENTS, PLEASE.
>> DO YOU LIKE ME TO READ ALL THREE?
>> YES. PLEASE READ ALL THREE TOGETHER.
REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1B, A REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1C, A REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS.
THE APPLICANT FOR ALL THREE ITEMS IS THE CITY OF PLANO.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> MS. SEBASTIAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO PAUSE JUST FOR A SECOND AND HAVE MS. D'ANDREA SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS HEARING IS DIFFERENT FROM SO MANY OTHERS, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION'S ASKED TO MAKE THESE ZONING AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF, OR IN REACTION TO THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE'S PASSAGE OF SB 840, SB 15, AND OTHER LAND RELATED BILLS.
THE CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATION ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY.
THE OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE RECOMMENDED TO FULFILL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION REQUIRES CITY REGULATIONS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW.
TOWARDS THE END OF THIS MEETING, THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO COMPLETE FINDINGS FORMS. THESE ARE FORMS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS BEING AMENDED IN WAYS THAT DON'T MEET CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FILLING OUT THESE FINDING FORMS, THEIR RESPONSE TO MAKE THE ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW TRULY ISN'T DISCRETIONARY.
YOU'LL FIND ON THESE FINDING FORMS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENT BOX THAN WHAT'S THERE USUALLY THAT ALLOWS SIMPLY THE CHECKING OFF OF A BOX SAYING TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
AGAIN, CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, LAND RECORDS PLANNING MANAGER HERE AGAIN TO TALK ABOUT LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS.
WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS SO FAR.
WE ARE PREPARING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 25TH.
ALL OF THIS IS SO THAT THE AMENDMENTS CAN BE ADOPTED IN TIME FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MOST OF THE BILLS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE BILLS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS ALREADY IN EFFECT.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SIX BILLS THIS EVENING.
THESE THREE HERE ARE NEW FOR Y'ALL.
THEN WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT THE THREE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AT OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
HOUSE BILL 1522, THE BIGGEST IMPACT THERE IS THAT THERE'S AN EARLIER DEADLINE TO POST AGENDAS THAN THERE IS TODAY.
HOUSE BILL 24, MAKES CHANGES TO THE ZONING CASE NOTICING AND PROTEST PROCEDURES.
THEN HOUSE BILL 2464 CREATES REGULATIONS FOR NO IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESSES.
WE'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE ARE LATER, AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT IS ALREADY IN EFFECT.
THEN AGAIN, WE HAVE THE THREE BILLS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT,
[00:10:05]
SENATE BILL 15 FOR SMALL-LOT SINGLE FAMILY, SENATE BILL 840 FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL IN MOST NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PLUS THE CONVERSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO THOSE USES, AND THE RELATED COMPANION BILL OF 2477 FOR OFFICE CONVERSIONS.THESE LAST THREE BILLS ARE BRACKETED TO CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 150,000, AND COUNTIES OVER 300,000.
THOSE ARE ALSO THE THREE THAT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE REGARDING PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LITIGANTS THAT CAN SUE CITIES, AND WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR LEGAL FEES, AS WELL AS OURS IF THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL.
AS WE'VE HAD THESE MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF GOALS IDENTIFIED TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE ADJUST OUR ORDINANCES TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW LAWS.
WE HAVE TWEAKED THESE SLIGHTLY SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL'S COMMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE, TO PRESERVE PLANO'S ABILITY TO FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN THE LEGACY AND THE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CROSSROADS AREAS.
SECOND, TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND INTEGRITY.
THREE, TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THESE USES.
FOUR, TO PRESERVE THE DESIRABILITY AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF PLANO, AS A PLACE WHERE PLANO CAN LIVE AND WORK BY REQUIRING WELL-BUILT MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.
FIVE, TO DIVERSIFY THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK.
AGAIN, AS WE'VE NOTED BEFORE, THERE ARE POTENTIAL TO CREATE NONCONFORMITIES WITH THESE CHANGES, BUT WE HAVE DESIGNED THE AMENDMENTS TO AVOID CREATING NONCONFORMITIES.
IF NONCONFORMITY USES WERE CREATED, WE WOULD NEED TO SEND NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS.
IT'S BECAUSE WE INTENDED TO AVOID CREATING NONCONFORMING USES, WE DID NOT SEND THOSE NOTICES.
JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
WELL, AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THESE THREE NEW BILLS BEFORE WE ALSO GET TO THE THREE WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
HOUSE BILL 1522, THAT ONE IS THE ONE THAT CHANGES AGENDA POSTING DEADLINES.
TODAY, THE AGENDAS NEED TO BE POSTED 72 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING TIME.
UNDER THE NEW BILL, IT WILL BE THREE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING DATE.
FOR YOUR COMMISSION THAT TYPICALLY MEETS ON MONDAY NIGHTS, THAT MEANS THAT YOUR AGENDAS ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE POSTED BY TUESDAY, THE WEEK BEFORE.
BUT DON'T GET TOO EXCITED ABOUT EARLIER AGENDAS, BECAUSE DUE TO OUR CURRENT SCHEDULES PROCESSES, AND THE 30-DAY SHOT CLOCK THAT'S ALSO IN PLACE FROM THE STATE, PACKETS ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUED TO BE PUBLISHED ON THURSDAYS.
THE REAL IMPACT, WHILE THE AGENDA WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO SEE SOONER, WILL ALSO MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE MORE STRICT WITH APPLICANTS ON CUT OFF DEADLINES TO GET ON THOSE AGENDAS.
WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCES TO COMPLY WITH THIS BILL, BUT WE WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE.
THE BILL DOES INCLUDE A NUMBER OF OTHER CHANGES SPECIFIC TO CITY BUDGETS, BUT THIS WAS THE ONE THAT REALLY IMPACTS YOUR COMMISSION.
HOUSE BILL 24. THIS ONE IS A BIT COMPLICATED, LARGELY BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN IT.
I'M GOING TO OUTLINE THEM HERE, BUT THEN WE'LL GO OVER EACH OF THEM AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TO RESPOND TO THEM IN JUST A MOMENT.
NOTICE THAT COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ZONING CASES NEEDS TO BE POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE UNDER THE BILL.
SIGNS NEED TO BE POSTED ON THE SITE FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES.
THERE IS A NEW CATEGORY OF ZONING CHANGES CREATED CALLED PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE.
THEN MOST NOTABLY, THE PROTEST THRESHOLDS FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR SOME ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS IS CHANGING FROM 20-60%.
WE'LL PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAIL THERE.
THEN NUMBER 5, AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THOUGH IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THE ATTACHMENT, THE OPTION WAS REMOVED TO REQUIRE A CITY COUNCIL SUPERMAJORITY WHEN YOUR COMMISSION DENIES A ZONING CASE.
WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.
FOR WEBSITE POSTINGS, WE CURRENTLY POST NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE NEWSPAPER, IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.
BUT NOW BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A WEBSITE, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE POSTING IT AS WELL ON THIS PUBLIC NOTICES PAGE THAT ALREADY EXISTED FOR OTHER PURPOSES, SO WE WILL JUST BE ADDING THOSE ON THERE AS WELL.
FOR ZONING SIGNS. THIS IS ALSO FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO THIS.
OUR STANDARDS GENERALLY ALIGN WITH THE BILL.
WE DID NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, THOUGH.
THERE IS A STANDARD IN THERE THAT ALLOWS WHEN THE CITY INITIATES A ZONING CASE ON PRIVATE LAND,
[00:15:01]
IF WE CAN POST SIGNS, WE COULD.BUT IF WE COULDN'T GET PERMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POST ON A MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM AS DESIGNATED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
BUT THAT REALLY WON'T WORK UNDER THE BILL.
UNDER THE BILL, WE ARE REQUIRED TO POST THE SIGN EVEN ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE BILL ESSENTIALLY GIVES US THAT PERMISSION THAT HOPEFULLY IS NOT AN ISSUE.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS VERY OFTEN, BUT WE DID HAVE TO ADJUST OUR STANDARD FOR THAT.
IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES INVOLVED, WE ACTUALLY CAN POST IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GET ONTO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THOSE CASES.
AMENDMENTS ARE DRAFTED TO BETTER ALIGN OUR STANDARDS WITH THIS BILL.
>> PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGES IS THIS NEW CATEGORY THAT WAS CREATED.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE CITY-INITIATED PROPOSALS.
STILL THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GENERALLY BE CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AND PERHAPS COUNCIL WOULD.
THERE'S A THREE MAIN TYPES OF THESE CHANGES.
YOU CAN EITHER CHANGE THE ZONING REGULATION TO ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT WAS ALLOWED BEFORE, BUT IT ALSO NEEDS TO APPLY UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS.
YOU COULD ADOPT A NEW ZONING CODE OR ZONING MAP THAT'S GOING TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY, OR IF YOU'RE ADOPTING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WOULD AGAIN ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN BEFORE AND IS ALONG A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.
WITH THESE TYPES OF ZONING CHANGES, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES ON WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR NOTICING AND FOR PROTEST.
THAT NEWSPAPER NOTICE IS STILL GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE NEW WEBSITE NOTICE IS ALSO GOING TO HAPPEN.
IF THERE ARE NON-CONFORMITIES THAT ARE CREATED, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO NOTICE FOR THAT UNDER THE SENATE BILL 929 FROM THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THEN ON THE OCCASIONS THAT WE DO JOINT COUNCIL AND P&Z PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE WOULD DO OUR STANDARD NOTICE.
THAT IS BASICALLY THE NEWSPAPER AND WEBSITE NOTICE, TYPICALLY, ANYWAY.
IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO PROTESTS FROM OWNERS OF SURROUNDING OR SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THESE TYPES OF CASES.
ANOTHER CATEGORY OF ZONING CHANGES, CERTAIN TYPES OF CHANGES THAT ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN EXISTING SOUNDS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE, BUT THIS IS NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE INITIATION OF THESE REQUESTS.
IF MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED AND NO MORE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES ARE PERMITTED UNLESS THOSE USES ARE LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND DON'T EXCEED 35% OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE VERY COGNIZANT AS WE'RE IDENTIFYING WHICH CASES FALL UNDER THIS CATEGORY TO MAKE SURE IT FITS.
BUT WHEN THOSE CASES COME IN, IF THEY ARE PROTESTED, THEIR PROTEST THRESHOLD, WHILE THEY USED TO HAVE A 20% FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, IT'S NOW 60%.
THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A MAJORITY AT COUNCIL RATHER THAN A SUPERMAJORITY.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REGULAR MAJORITY AT A COUNCIL CASE AND THIS TYPE OF MAJORITY FOR A PROTEST CASE IS THAT IT'S BASED ON THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.
THAT'S THE MAIN DISTINCTION THAT THIS WOULD TRIGGER VERSUS A STANDARD VOTE THAT THEY MIGHT TAKE.
TO OUTLINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE DO TODAY FOR LAND-BASED CASES AND WHAT'S COMING UNDER THE NEW BILL.
WE'VE GOT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES IN THE SECOND COLUMN, THE THIRD COLUMN IS FOR THE SUBJECT AREA ITSELF, THE LAND THAT'S SUBJECT TO CHANGE, AND THEN THE LAST COLUMN IS FOR AREA WITHIN 200 FEET.
TODAY FOR LAND-BASED CASES, 20% OF THE AREA, THE OWNERS OF THOSE.
IT'S NOT THE NUMBER, IT'S THE LAND AREA THAT'S CONSIDERED.
IF THAT THRESHOLD IS MET, IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY FOR THE SUBJECT AREA, AND THEN THERE'S A SEPARATE CALCULATION FOR WITHIN 200 FEET, AND IT'S THE SAME 20% AND A SUPERMAJORITY.
FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CASES WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST SLIDE.
IT STAYS THE SAME FOR THE SUBJECT AREA, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING UP TO 60% FOR WITHIN 200 FEET, AND THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A MAJORITY INSTEAD OF A SUPERMAJORITY.
THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGES, AS WE DISCUSSED, THERE'S NO PROTEST ABILITY, AND THEN ALL OTHER LAND-BASED ZONING CASES REMAIN AS THEY ARE TODAY.
TWENTY PERCENT FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT AREA AND WITHIN 200 FEET, AND STILL THE SUPERMAJORITY.
THEN LAST, AS I MENTIONED, THE ORDINANCE IS UPDATED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR
[00:20:03]
A CITY COUNCIL SUPERMAJORITY WHEN YOUR COMMISSION DENIES A ZONING CASE.OUR CHARTER REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF PRESENT MEMBERS, SO WITHOUT THAT STATE ALLOWANCE THAT NOW IS NO LONGER GOING TO EXIST, WE CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE SUPERMAJORITY.
NEXT AND LAST NEW BILL IS HOUSE BILL 2464.
THIS ONE IS ABOUT HOME OCCUPATIONS, THAT'S WHAT WE TYPICALLY CALL THEM IN PLANO.
THEY HAVE DEFINED A NEW TERM CALLED NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESSES.
THEY'RE IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEY'RE PROVIDING A LAWFUL GOOD OR SERVICE, THEY HAVE NO IMPACT.
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PATRONS DON'T EXCEED THE STANDARD OCCUPANCY FOR THAT DWELLING, THEY DON'T GENERATE ADDITIONAL ON-STREET PARKING OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND THEY DON'T SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE NOISE IN THE AREA.
WHEN THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING OUT OF A HOME, THE CITY IS LIMITED IN HOW WE CAN REGULATE OR PROHIBIT THEM.
AGAIN, THIS BILL IS ALREADY IN EFFECT.
AS I MENTIONED, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION USE.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE NON CONFORMITIES, WE ARE SUGGESTING TO ADD ANOTHER TYPE OF USE CALLED HOME-BASED BUSINESS, NO-IMPACT.
JUST TRYING TO THINK THOSE UP WHEN YOU ALPHABETIZE THEM, SO THEY'RE CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE USE CHART.
THE MAIN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THESE TWO USES IS THAT, FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION THAT WE CURRENTLY ALLOW, THERE IS REASONABLE ON-STREET PARKING ALLOWED IN FRONT OF THE HOME THAT HAS THE BUSINESS, BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE ALLOWED BESIDES THE OCCUPANTS OF THEM.
UNDER THE NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS, THEY CANNOT USE ON-STREET PARKING AT ALL IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS, AND THEY CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE MORE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDING.
IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN CONTINUE ON TO TALK ABOUT THE THREE AND WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
>> AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, ONLY CERTAIN CITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THESE BILLS.
THERE'S 19 IN TEXAS MAPPED HERE.
TEN OF THOSE ARE IN NORTH TEXAS.
SENATE BILL 15 ALLOWS SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY ON LAND THAT IS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY, HAS NEVER BEEN PLOTTED, AND AS FIVE ACRES OR MORE, AND IT DOES EXCLUDE AREA WITHIN 3,000 FEET OF AN AIRPORT.
THERE'S A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE BILL, INCLUDING SETBACKS, HEIGHT, AND PARKING.
THIS IS OUR UPDATED MAP OF PARCELS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO SB 15.
THE AREAS IN YELLOW MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS FIVE ACRES OR MORE, AND SINGLE FAMILY IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT, AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN PLOTTED.
THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF AREAS IDENTIFIED IN GRAY THAT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT ARE OWNED BY THE CITY AND ARE GENERALLY PARKLAND.
TO IMPLEMENT SENATE BILL 15, GENERALLY, WE HAVE REGULATIONS DRAFTED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
WE PLAN ON CREATING SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
THOSE ARE AVAILABLE IN ATTACHMENT A OF AGENDA ITEM 1A, CALLED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT, AND THOSE STANDARDS ALIGN WITH THE BILL.
WHEN PROPERTIES THAT MEET THE BILL THRESHOLDS COME IN TO DEVELOP, THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO PLOT UNDER THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT STANDARDS, OR THEY COULD FOLLOW THEIR BASE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD GET NOTED ON THE PLOT.
ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON LOT COVERAGE, AND THESE ARE SMALLER LOTS, WE ARE REQUIRING OPEN SPACE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
REALLY, THAT'S THE BIG IMPACT ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR SB 15.
SENATE BILL 840, AS A REMINDER, ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE IN ANY AREAS THAT ALLOW OFFICE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE OR MIXED-USE.
THIS MEANS ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY.
WE CANNOT REQUIRE ANY DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS SUCH AS ZONING IN THESE AREAS.
IT LIMITS ADDITIONALLY WHAT THE CITY CAN REGULATE ANYWHERE MULTIFAMILY IS BUILT.
INCLUDING OUR EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED THERE, AND PERMITS PLOTS AND SITE PLANS MUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
[00:25:01]
ADDITIONALLY, IT DOES ALLOW CONVERSION OF MOST NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED-USE.THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF EXCEPTIONS WITHIN 3,000 FEET OF THE AIRPORT JUST OUTSIDE OUR CITY LIMIT, AND THEN WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A DEFINED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE THAT'S DEFINED BY THE BILL.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE LOCATIONS THAT MEET THOSE STANDARDS.
THIS MAP SHOWS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS AND ORANGE.
IN THE DARK BLUE, IT'S NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE HEIGHT IS ABOVE 45 FEET, AND THE LIGHT BLUE IS NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 45 FEET OR LESS.
THEN, AGAIN, WE ALSO HAVE THE SENATE BILL 2477, COMPANION BILL THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO OFFICE CONVERSIONS, BUT IS GOING TO BE HARMONIZED WITH 840 TO ALIGN.
THE SENATE BILL 840, AS I MENTIONED, HAS A VARIETY OF STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THESE USES WHEN THEY ARE DEVELOPED.
DENSITY IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE CITY OR 36 DRILLING UNITS PER ACRE.
HEIGHT IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT WOULD APPLY TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE SAME SITE OR 45 FEET.
IF A NON-RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35, THAT MULTIFAMILY CAN GO UP TO 45.
A SETBACK OR BUFFER IS VERY SIMILAR.
THE SMALLEST IT'S GOING TO BE IS 25 FEET, CAN'T REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT.
THERE'S RESTRICTION THAT WE CAN'T REGULATE LOT COVERAGE AND RESTRICTIONS REGARDING NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND MIXED-USE.
AGAIN, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS REQUIRED.
THESE ARE THE BIG PICTURE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 840.
GENERALLY, WE'RE GOING TO BRING REGULATIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE DENSITY THROUGH MINIMUM HEIGHTS, MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, AND MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZES, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADOPT NEW DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY FOR BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, AND BUILDING QUALITY AND RESILIENCE, WE'RE UPDATING THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, WE'RE CONSIDERING ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WE WILL BE REMOVING MULTIFAMILY AS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE RCD ZONING DISTRICT, AND THEN REQUIRING NOTICE AND SIGNAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO SENATE BILL 840, BUT ACTUALLY SENATE BILL 15, AS WELL, WHICH WE WILL BE DISCUSSING LATER.
THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED IN THE JOINT MEETING PACKET.
THIS IS THE HEIGHT MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS THAT ARE PROPOSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THERE'S A LOT TO TAKE IN ON THIS MAP, BUT IN THE RETAIL CORNERS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT HEIGHTS BETWEEN ZERO AND 45 FEET.
THEN AS YOU GO ALONG, SAY THE US 75, WE'VE GOT HEIGHTS BETWEEN 45 FEET AND 325 FEET.
THEN IN THE MORE URBAN AREAS, MINIMUM OF 75 TO NO MAXIMUM.
BUT NOTABLY IN THE RT DISTRICT, WE HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 120 FEET WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 325.
IN THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT, GENERALLY ALONG THE NORTH AND DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT 120 FOOT MINIMUM WITH NO MAXIMUM.
THOSE 120 HIGHER MINIMUMS ARE TO ALIGN WITH PARTS OF THE COMP PLAN THAT REQUIRE 10 STORIES OR MORE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT, AND TO HELP PROTECT THESE SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET THEM, THEY'RE HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS.
AS THESE NEW HEIGHTS GO IN PLACE IN THE CITY, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE LOOKED AT WHAT PROTECTIONS WE COULD PUT IN PLACE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES NEARBY BY LOOKING AT OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE ACTUALLY HAS SOME HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN OUR YARD REGULATIONS.
WE'RE ADAPTING THOSE AND MOVING THEM SPECIFICALLY TO OUR HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN ARTICLE 13, RESULTING IN A 1-2 SLOPE STARTING AT THE SETBACK LINE.
THERE'S A GRAPHIC THAT'S PART OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL TEXTS TO HELP EXPLAIN THIS, BUT HOPEFUL THAT THAT CAN HELP KEEP
[00:30:01]
FROM HAVING NECESSARILY A WALL RIGHT UP AGAINST THAT SETBACK LINE.THIS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST MULTIFAMILY.
WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN OUT OF BOTH OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT ESPECIALLY THE JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL.
WE HAVE DRAFTED SOME DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S ATTACHMENT C TO AGENDA ITEM 1A.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC TOPIC OF EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN AS A TWO-PHASED APPROACH.
FOR NOW, WE ARE INCLUDING LEAD CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE, BUT FOR PHASE 2, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL GREEN BUILDING CODE OR THE TEXAS GREEN CODE OR SOME HYBRID OF ALL OF THESE THINGS.
WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT AS PART OF THE REWRITE WITH THE REWRITE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WE'LL NEED TO WORK WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION ON ANY BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS.
AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE OUR DESIGN STANDARDS.
WE DID HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAVE IN PLACE MULTIFAMILY GUIDELINES.
THEY'RE REALLY DESIGNED FOR GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, THEY WERE ADOPTED IN 1991 AND RESCINDED IN 2022.
ESPECIALLY FOR THE NON-GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS, WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE MOST MULTIFAMILY RECENTLY HAS REQUIRED A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE'RE ABLE TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO REGULATE THE DESIGN OF THIS MULTIFAMILY, OFTENTIMES THROUGH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR SOMETIMES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THERE IS, MEANWHILE, A CITYWIDE COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN UNDERWAY TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS NOW BEING ADMINISTRATIVE, DESIGN STANDARDS ARE BEING NORMALIZED. THERE WE GO.
NEW DOCUMENT, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, IT'S OUR FIRST PHASE OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON, BUT WE NEEDED TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THERE WILL BE MORE TO COME ON THE COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN OVER TIME.
A TOPIC THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN REGARDS TO PARKING WAS COMPACT PARKING.
THAT IS CURRENTLY RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN USES THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY.
IN SECTION 16.300, AN EXCLUSION WAS ADDED, SO BECAUSE UNDER ARTICLE 16, THE BG DOWNTOWN DISTRICT IS EXCLUDED, IT DOES ALLOW COMPACT PARKING, BUT WE REVISED BG SO THAT MULTIFAMILY CANNOT USE COMPACT PARKING.
ALSO, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT AND MODIFICATIONS TO THAT THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE BILL.
WE HAVE DRAFTED AMENDMENTS FOR THAT THAT REMOVE THE STANDARDS THAT CAN NO LONGER BE REQUIRED, IT DOES PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL BALCONIES FACING EXPRESSWAYS FOR ALL DWELLINGS IN THE OVERLAY, REQUIRES A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES FOR ALL LAND USES IN THE OVERLAY.
>> THEN IT REQUIRES THE STANDARDS THAT WERE IN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY BEING MOVED TO APPLY TO ALL INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND MIXED USE BUILDINGS IN THE CITY.
THAT'S THE MERV FILTERS, THE LOCATION OF THE INTAKE OPENINGS.
FOR THAT ONE, WE DID ADD IN A BUFFER FROM THE EXPRESSWAY BECAUSE WE FELT IF YOU WERE NOWHERE NEAR AN EXPRESSWAY, THE LOCATION IS LESS IMPORTANT.
THEN THE BUILDING DESIGN TO ADDRESS INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL DWELLINGS, ALL OF THESE TYPES OF DWELLINGS IN THE CITY.
ANOTHER TOPIC IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND WHETHER WE WANTED TO ALLOW MORE OF THOSE TYPES OF USES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MULTI-FAMILY IN SOME DISTRICTS.
PER THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION, WE'RE LOOKING AT TIER 2 HOUSING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN DISTRICT.
THAT'S THOSE THREE TYPES LISTED HERE.
FOR OPTION 1, THIS IS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
THIS IS DISTRICTS WHERE SOME RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TODAY, AND ALSO LOCATIONS THAT ARE GENERALLY ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S OUR TWO OFFICE DISTRICTS, THE RETAIL DISTRICT, URBAN MIXED USE, BG FOR DOWNTOWN, AND CB 1.
WE'RE KEEPING THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY FOR THE RESTRICTED AREA.
THESE USES WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED 3,000 FOOT FROM AN AIRPORT AND 1,000 FEET FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
[00:35:03]
FOR COMPARISON, THIS IS OPTION 2, AND THIS ONE IS DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW SOME RESIDENTIAL USES EITHER BY RIGHT OR BY SUP TODAY.BUT THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE ADJACENT TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY AND MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR MIXED USE, BUT MAYBE ARE LESS APPROPRIATE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY.
WE WANTED TO LET YOU LOOK AT BOTH SO YOU COULD CONSIDER BOTH.
BUT AGAIN, WE DID DRAFT THE AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT OPTION 1.
WE CAN HOP BACK AND FORTH AS NEEDED LATER AT OUR DISCUSSION.
WE DO HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS BOTH OVERLAID.
I WILL NOTE THE LEGEND IN THE PACKET IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING.
THE YELLOW THAT SHOWS IS REALLY JUST THE CC, RC, AND RE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND BLUE ARE THOSE OFFICE DISTRICTS.
YELLOW IS A SUBSET OF OPTION 2, AND IT MAKES IT HARD TO IDENTIFY BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 ON THIS MAP, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT IT IF IT IS HELPFUL TO SEE.
IF EITHER OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWING MORE PARCELS TO BE IMPACTED BY SENATE BILL 15.
WE HAVE DRAFTED, AS WE SAID, THE RCD TIER 2 HOUSING TYPES WOULD BE WHAT'S PERMITTED UNDER OPTION 1 OR OPTION 2, BUT ANYTHING THAT MEETS THE THRESHOLDS FOR SENATE BILL 15 THAT IT'S NOT PLOTTED, IT'S FIVE ACRES OR MORE, AND THEN IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE, WOULD THEREFORE ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY THERE'D BE MORE IMPACTED.
THIS ONE HERE SHOWS THE PARCELS IN A DARK NAVY.
IT LOOKS CLOSE IN COLOR TO THE AIRPORT COLOR, SO NOT THE AIRPORT BUT THOSE COUPLE OF DARK BLUE LOCATIONS WOULD BE ADDED TO THAT PREVIOUS MAP FOR SENATE BILL 15.
FOR OPTION 1, IT'S JUST A HANDFUL OF LOCATIONS.
UNDER OPTION 2, YOU GET A FEW MORE LARGER AREAS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 15 IF WE WERE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE.
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, WE'RE PROPOSING TO REQUIRE NOTICING FOR SENATE BILL 15 AND SENATE BILL 840 PROJECTS.
SIGNAGE WOULD BE REQUIRED THROUGH THE PLATTING AND ENGINEERING PROJECT RELEASE PROCESS.
THE SIGNS WOULD BE SLIGHTLY SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT IN STYLE FROM THE ZONING CASE SIGNS.
THEN SIMILARLY, WE WOULD AS THE CITY MAIL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS WITHIN 1,500 FEET.
WE WOULD BE PRESENTING AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE UP FOR THE COST OF DOING THIS.
THERE ARE ALSO NON-ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.
WE DO HAVE THE COMPANION ITEMS 1B AND 1C TONIGHT.
1B IS FOR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND 1C IS FOR THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
THIS SLIDE HERE IS LARGELY IN RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL 15.
FOR BOTH OF THESE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS NEED SOME CHANGES TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE CITY THAT ARE 50 FOOT IN WIDTH OR LESS WOULD NEED TO HAVE REAR ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY, AND THAT ALLEY WOULD BE SLIGHTLY WIDER THAN A STANDARD ALLEY FOR A STANDARD LOT.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A 600-FOOT MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH AND WOULD USE MIX STREET DESIGN WITH ON STREET PARKING, STREET TREES, WIDER SIDEWALKS.
ALSO, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY THAT A VACATED PLAT IS STILL CONSIDERED A PLAT OF RECORD IN RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL 15.
ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT WE WANTED TO IMPLEMENT ARE TO REQUIRE AN INTERNAL STREET NETWORK FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS OVER FIVE ACRES.
HERE WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR STANDARDS WITH A 600-FOOT MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH, SAME MIXED USE STREET DESIGN, AND THEN THE STREETS WOULD BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, BUT MAY BE ACCEPTED AS PUBLIC STREETS IN VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO REQUIRE AN INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS EARLIER IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SO AT CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NOW, AND ALSO START REQUIRING A WATER AND SEWER STUDY.
THAT CAPACITY WOULD BE ANALYZED, AND THE CAPACITY WOULD ACTUALLY BE VESTED WITH THE PROJECT.
IT'S NOT JUST EVERYBODY GETS ACCESS TO THE SAME AND WHOEVER COMES, WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE HAVING CAPACITY THAT OVERLAPS EACH OTHER.
[00:40:03]
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. EACH PROJECT GETS ITS OWN CAPACITY AND LOCKS INTO THAT.THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TRANSFER IT TO ANOTHER PROJECT, BUT THEY COULD VOLUNTARILY FORFEIT IT IF THE PROJECT WAS NO LONGER MOVING FORWARD.
ALSO MAKING CHANGES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING CITY COST PARTICIPATION.
THERE WERE REFERENCES IN THERE TO FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR CITY PARTICIPATION, THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
THAT CITY PARTICIPATION IS NOT OBLIGATED, AND ANY CITY PARTICIPATION THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN REGARDS TO INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER CHANGES.
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO TIE THE NOTICING FOR SENATE BILL 15 AND 840 PROJECTS TO THE PLAT, THAT IS NOTED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
THERE WERE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE DEFINITIONS ADDED, AND THEN, OF COURSE, EXEMPTIONS FOR ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CHANGES RIGHT NOW.
THE STORM-WATER MITIGATION IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE REWRITE PROJECT, AND THEN WE'LL ADMINISTRATIVELY HANDLE MAKING SURE THAT PLAT NOTES ARE AS THEY SHOULD BE TO NOTE WHETHER IT'S A SENATE BILL 15 PROJECT OR NOT.
IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING CASE AND ITS CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
WE DID FIND THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ACTIONS AND POLICIES THAT THESE CHANGES DO CONFORM WITH, LAND USE ACTION 1, COMMUNITY DESIGN POLICY AND ACTION 1, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION 3.
BUT AS MS. D'ANDREA MENTIONED EARLIER, FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS WHEN A CASE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE MIX OF USES DENSITY OR HEIGHT IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DASHBOARDS.
WE'VE NOTED THERE'S BEEN A VARIETY OF OUTREACH DONE, SOME EMAIL NEWSLETTERS, THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA.
THEY PUT OUT A PLANO CITY NEWS VIDEO.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE ZONING CASE RESPONSE MAP AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND WE KEEP INFORMATION POSTED ON OUR ACTIVE ZONING PETITIONS PAGE AS WELL.
WE DID GET ONE RESPONSE ON OUR ZONING CASE RESPONSE MAP IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING CASE, AS WELL AS FIVE ADDITIONAL OTHER LETTERS AND EMAILS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
AS I MENTIONED, FOR THE ZONING CASE SPECIFICALLY, WHILE THE ZONING CASE IS DISFAVORED, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE P&Z STRONGLY CONSIDER APPROVAL TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THE FINDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE AND CHANGES ARE NOTED IN ATTACHMENT A OF AGENDA ITEM 1A.
I WILL NOTE THE CHANGES, AS YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, THE STYLE MIGHT BE A LITTLE HARDER TO READ THAN USUAL.
WE WILL BE CLEANING THAT UP IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED AT COUNCIL AS WE HAVE MORE TIME.
FOR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, A BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE RECOMMEND YOU APPROVE THE CHANGES AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A FOR AGENDA ITEM 1B.
SIMILARLY, FOR THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS, THE AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A OF AGENDA ITEM 1C, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT.
THAT'S IT. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. OLLEY?
>> JUST MORE OF A CLARIFICATION FOR HB 24, GIVEN THAT IS IN EFFECT, AND IT ESSENTIALLY PRECEDES 840 AND 15, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SIGNAGE SAYING NOTICING REQUIRES, THIS IS A PROPOSED, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING, I FORGET THE LAST PART, GIVEN THAT WE ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT SIGNAGE CHANGES TO SPECIFICALLY SIGNAL WHEN SOMETHING IS DUE TO SP 840, WOULD WE BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT TEXT, THIS IS A PROPOSED ZONING WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE WAS?
ONE IS THE BILL THAT IS IN EFFECT ALREADY IS HOUSE BILL 2464, THE HOME-BASED BUSINESS ONE, SO 24 IS NOT YET IN EFFECT IN REGARDS TO SIGNS.
BUT THEN THOSE SIGNS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE SPECIFIC TO ZONING CHANGES,
[00:45:01]
AND OUR NEW SIGNS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE SPECIFIC TO DEVELOPMENT, SO THEY'D BE REGULATED DIFFERENTLY.>> ON 2464, THE ONLY GUARD RAIL THAT I SEE THERE IS NOISE.
IF I HAVE A HOME-BASED BUSINESS AND I AM MAKING ORGANIC MANURE WHICH SMELLS, WE CAN'T RESTRICT THAT, AM I CORRECT IN THINKING THAT WAY? AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T TAKE OFF STREET PARKING AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE OCCUPANCY THAT WOULD NORMALLY COME WITH THAT BUILDING, I CAN ESSENTIALLY HAVE A MANURE HEAP AND SELL OUT OF MY BACKYARD TECHNICALLY.
>> I THINK, AND IF ANYONE, D'ANDREA AND COLLEAGUES HAVE MORE INFORMATION, BUT I THINK THAT EXPLICITLY ODOR IS NOT INCLUDED AS A AS A CONSIDERATION.
I'M GOING TO KEEP SKIMMING TO CONFIRM.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, I DIDN'T SEE ODOR.
I'LL JUST READ THE RELEVANT SECTION OF IT.
"THE MUNICIPALITY IS STILL ABLE TO REQUIRE THAT A HOME-BASED BUSINESS BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW, INCLUDING, ONE, A MUNICIPAL FIRE AND BUILDING CODE, AND TWO, A MUNICIPAL REGULATION RELATED TO HEALTH AND SANITATION, TRANSPORTATION OR TRAFFIC CONTROL, SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE OR POLLUTION, AND NOISE CONTROL.
WE MAY ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE BUSINESS BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED.
>> THAT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING.
>> ONE OTHER THING, JUST MORE VOLUNTARY FORFEITURE OF CAPACITY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH? YOU SAID THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IF A DEVELOPMENT CAN FORFEIT CAPACITY BASED ON CITY ARCHITECTURE, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> SURE. THE STUDY WILL DETERMINE ANTICIPATED DEMAND OF CAPACITY BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT AMOUNT OF CAPACITY WILL BE RESERVED FOR AS LONG AS THE PROJECT IS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SHOULD, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY NO LONGER WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT PROJECT, THEY CAN GIVE THAT CAPACITY BACK, AND IT'LL NO LONGER BE RESERVED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. WITH RESPECT TO THE NO-IMPACT HOME BUSINESS, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PATRONS NOT EXCEED THE OCCUPANCY LIMIT FOR THE PROPERTY.
DOES THAT MEAN EMPLOYEES AND PATRONS WHO WERE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY? BECAUSE A HOME BUSINESS COULD HAVE EMPLOYEES WORKING OFFSITE.
THEY COULD HAVE CLIENTS LOCATED ALL OVER.
DOES THIS PURPORT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CLIENTS A BUSINESS CAN HAVE?
>> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BILL TEXT.
YES. IT'S BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED.
YES. AS AT ANY TIME ON THE PROPERTY, WHERE THE BUSINESS IS OPERATED, A TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, OR CLIENTS, OR PATRONS OF THE BUSINESS THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MUNICIPAL OCCUPANCY LIMITS.
IT'S ONLY REGULATING THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY AT ONE TIME.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING HOW A BUSINESS OPERATOR PREVENTS SOMEBODY FROM SHOWING UP ON THE FRONT PORCH AND RINGING THE DOORBELL.
ANYWAY, I GUESS THAT'S A PROBLEM WE CAN'T SOLVE TODAY.
I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BROUNOFF. COMMISSIONER TONG.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION, ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A TREMENDOUS CHANGES IN SUCH A SHORT TIME FRAME, SO A LOT OF HARD WORK PUT INTO IT, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
I DO HAVE A LITTLE QUESTION REGARDING A COMMENT YOU MADE THAT BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, I CAN'T REMEMBER ON WHICH SLIDE YOU SAID, WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE AREAS THAN THE BILL HAS IMPACT ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
[00:50:04]
THOSE OFFICE AREAS, NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT CAN CHANGE INTO MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED USED, THERE ARE TWO MAPS THAT YOU'RE MERGING THEM TOGETHER, AND YOU SAID THESE ARE ACTUALLY MORE AREAS THAN THE BILL ALLOWS.I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HAPPENED.
>> SURE. WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY ALLOWING MORE SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHERE THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY PERMITTED.
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONSIDER FOR A DEVELOPER, PERHAPS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED USE.
WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
OPTION 1, THESE WOULD BE ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THE BLUE OR THE YELLOW COLOR.
IT WOULD JUST BE SPECIFIC TO SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> HERE SPECIFIC TO SINGLE-FAMILY FOR OPTION 2 ON THE YELLOW.
THEN BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DOING THAT, THE IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL 15 WOULD GROW SLIGHTLY.
ON THESE MAPS, THIS IS FOR OPTION 1.
WE WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL PARCELS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE SMALLER LOT SINGLE-FAMILY.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP UNDER THE RCD TIER 2 HOUSING THAT WOULD BE EXPANDED, AS WELL AS THE SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY UNDER SENATE BILL 15.
THESE COUPLE OF DARK BLUE PARCELS ON THIS MAP FOR OPTION 1, AND IF IT WAS OPTION 2, THERE WOULD BE A FEW MORE BIGGER PARCELS.
>> ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DIRECTIONS TONIGHT TO PICK BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND 2?
AGAIN, IT'S DRAFTED FOR OPTION 1.
IF YOU WERE TO PREFER THAT, YOU COULD JUST ADOPT IT AS PROPOSED.
BUT IF YOU PREFERRED OPTION 2, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO RECOMMEND WITH AN AMENDMENT.
OR IF YOU PREFER SOME OTHER COMBINATION, LET US KNOW THAT TOO.
REMIND ME HOW WE CALCULATE [NOISE] ALLOWED OCCUPANCY FOR RESIDENTIAL.
IS IT BY GROSS FLOOR AREA, BY BEDROOMS?
>> THERE IS A STANDARD UNDER THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, I BELIEVE, AND IT IS BASED ON EACH BEDROOM IT NEEDS TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE IN THERE.
IF YOU HAVE X SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THERE'S A CALCULATION TO DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN OCCUPY THAT BEDROOM.
BUT THAT IS UNDER A DIFFERENT CODE THAN THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES.
>> ROUGH MATH, 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME WITH FIVE BEDROOMS COULD EASILY HAVE A CAP OF AT LEAST 20-25 PEOPLE AS EMPLOYEES IN THAT HOME, IF MY MATH IS RIGHT.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A FOUR TO A BEDROOM WAS.
IT IS A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE UNDER THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THESE MAPS DOES NOT SHOW THE PDS AREAS RIGHT?
>> PDS ARE INCLUDED BASED ON THEIR BASE ZONING CATEGORY.
>> IF THEY ELECT TO COME BACK TO US TO CHANGE ANY OF THEIR ZONING, THEY CAN'T DO THAT?
>> THEY COULD REQUEST TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING.
IT SLIGHTLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PD IS REGULATING.
BUT IF SAY MULTIFAMILY IS NOT PERMITTED TODAY, THEY HAVE ONE ZONING AS THEIR BASE ZONING, MULTIFAMILY IS NOW ALLOWED USE FOR THAT PD.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US TO AMEND THAT PD TO BUILD THE MULTIFAMILY IF THEY MEET ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING ADOPTED.
>> ALSO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO US BECAUSE THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THESE MAPS, WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING AND ALL THESE CHANGES MIGHT HAP.
>> THAT IS RIGHT. ONLY IF THEY WANT TO REQUEST SOME AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARDS THAT YOU ALL ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THESE ARE ALL FOR NONE RESIDENTIAL ZONING AREAS THAT I KNOW THAT PLANO WILL PROBABLY BUILD OUT.
BUT IF WE HAD LARGE AREAS OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL,
[00:55:06]
CAN THEY USE THAT TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL BY RIGHT, OR THIS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO EXISTING BUILDINGS?>> IT IS BOTH UNDEVELOPED LAND, EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT COULD BE CONVERTED, OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE REDEVELOPED AS A BRAND NEW BUILDING.
>> IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE'S ANY STRUCTURE ON IT OR NOT?
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'LL CALL A PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
>> WE DO HAVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> IF YOU COULD CALL THEM IN ORDER, PLEASE.
REMEMBER WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THREE AND PUT THEM TOGETHER, SO A TOTAL OF 30 MINUTES.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EACH SPEAKER A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE ITEM AS A WHOLE.
>> THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MR. FRANK TURNER.
THEN THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE WILLIAM PIERCE CRAVENS VIA ZOOM.
>> MR. TURNER. MR. TURNER IS NOT SPEAKING.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE WILLIAM PIERCE CRAVENS VIA ZOOM.
MR. CRAVENS, ARE YOU AVAILABLE?
>> IF HE COULD TURN ON HIS VIDEO.
>> PLEASE TURN ON YOUR VIDEO. YOU MAY BEGIN.
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE TO PUT INTO THIS PRESENTATION.
THESE ARE SOME REALLY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES.
WITH EVERY ITERATION OF POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT THE CITY OF PLANO HAS MADE TO THEIR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ANY OTHER MAJOR PLANNING ON CHANGES.
THE CITY HAS ALWAYS CONDUCTED A WIDE RANGE PUBLIC OUTREACH TO ENSURE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY ARE ABLE TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND CONCERNS AND SEAT AT THE TABLE.
I FEEL THAT THIS PROCESS BREAKS WITH THAT TRADITION.
A LOT OF THE BILLS THAT WERE MENTIONED, SB 40, SB 15, ETC, WILL HELP TO RE-PURPOSE FALLOW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY, AS WELL AS SOME VACANT PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPABLE STATE.
BUT MANY OF THE ITEMS WITHIN THESE BAKED INTO THESE CHANGES THIS EVENING ACTUALLY ADD MORE COST BURDEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEREFORE WOULD HAVE TO PASS ON THOSE HIGHER DEVELOPMENT COSTS OR AT LEAST TRY TO PASS ON THOSE DEVELOPMENT COSTS TO THE END USER, WHETHER THAT'S A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNIT OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FOR SALE OR RENT.
THESE CHANGES FEEL VERY REACTIVE, AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WILL PASS ITEMS. I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THESE TWO ITEMS ARE NOT BEING SPLIT.
THOSE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THESE NEW STATE LAWS AND THE AMENDMENTS ON THE OTHER HAND.
I FEEL LIKE THOSE TWO SHOULD BE SEPARATE BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS ARE DISCRETIONARY.
I FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT THE OTHER CHANGES HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE PAST.
THE SB 40 WILL OFFER A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN SPECIFIC EAST PLANO, WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALL LOT PROPERTIES WITH OUTDATED ZONING, AND DUE TO THEIR SMALL SIZE, THE PROJECT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T JUSTIFY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL COST OF REZONING.
YOU JUST CAN'T AMORTIZE THAT EXTREME COST OVER A SMALL PROJECT.
LIKE I SAID, IT WOULD OPEN UP MANY VACANT AND UNUSABLE PROPERTIES TO VIABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
I FEEL THAT THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE BAKED INTO THIS PROPOSAL THIS EVENING SUCH AS ELIMINATING COMPACTS, PARKING SPACES, AND COMPELLING BUILDINGS TO BE LEAD CERTIFIED, INCREASED LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, ETC CONTINUE TO ADD
[01:00:02]
COSTS AND MAKE HOUSING FURTHER UNAFFORDABLE.NOT NECESSARILY WITHIN THIS PLAN.
I JUST WANTED TO ALSO EXPRESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT ABOUT THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE PARK FEE THAT ARE PUT ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS, BOTH MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY.
IT'S OVER 200 PERCENT INCREASE WITH NO REGARD TO LOCATION.
CERTAINLY DEVELOPING A PARK AND ACQUIRING LAND TO DO SO IN EAST PLANO IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THAT WEST PLANO, BUT THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION MADE FOR THAT.
IT'S JUST NOT EQUITABLE AND THERE AGAIN, IT FORCES WORKFORCE HOUSING TO TRY TO ABSORB THAT LARGE COST, AND AS A RESULT, AS A DEVELOPER, IT MAKES IT LESS ATTRACTIVE FOR US TO DEVELOP NEWER HOUSING IN AREAS THAT CANNOT ABSORB COST JUST BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF THE WORKFORCE HOUSING THAT WE TRY TO DEVELOP, AND IT JUST MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE ON THE END USER.
ANYWAY, I HOPE YOU TAKE THE POINTS THAT I MENTIONED UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, SPECIFICALLY SEPARATING THESE TWO ISSUES.
ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED BY LAW IN ONE CASE AND SECONDARILY, GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO GET PUBLIC FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE DISCRETIONARY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED HEREIN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CRAVENS. APOLOGIES. WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?
>> WILLIAM PIERCE CRAVENS, 1028 17TH STREET, PLANO, TEXAS, AND 5074.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. BILL LYLE.
JUST WANTED TO GO BACK ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I'LL START WITH A COMMENT THAT BOB KEHR, OUR NEW CITY COUNCILMAN MADE.
I THINK IS AT JOINT MEETING, BUT HE USED THE WORD OPPORTUNITY, MR. CRAVENS JUST DID THE SAME THING.
THERE'S A FEELING ON AS I LISTENED THAT FROM STAFF AND FROM COMMISSION, IT DOESN'T SEE ANY OPPORTUNITY HERE.
IT'S LIKE EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO TAKE AWAY THE OPPORTUNITY AND TO MAKE WHAT THE STATES TRYING TO DO MORE DIFFICULT.
IT'S JUST A FEELING THAT I GET FROM MY OBSERVATIONS.
THE PARK FEE BEING DOUBLED, WAS ALREADY SPOKEN OF.
ONE OPPORTUNITY THAT I'VE LONG SEEN IS THAT WE HAVE THESE 3,000 PARKING SPOTS, AND WE JUST ADDED A COUPLE HUNDRED MORE AT THE SOUTH COUPLET.
BUT THERE'S 1,200 AND SOMETHING AT UNDER GEORGE BUSH.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER THOUSAND OR MORE.
I THINK BETWEEN THE TWO, THERE'S AROUND 3,000 PARKING SPOTS, AND THEN YOU JUST ADD WHAT GOT ADDED AT THE SOUTH COUPLET.
WE HAVE TWO TRAINS NOW RUNNING THROUGH DOWNTOWN PLANO.
WHY HAVE A PARKING STANDARD AT ALL? IF PEOPLE CAN PARK HERE AND GO TO A JOB IN DALLAS, WHEN THEY COME HOME TO EAST PLANO, WHY COULDN'T THEY PARK THERE AND HAVE A FIVE MINUTE TRAIN RIDE HOME? YOU COULD SHUT DOWN 15TH STREET WHEN WE ADD THE FIRE STATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 75 BECAUSE FIRE STATION ONE DOESN'T NEED TO GET TO 75 VIA OUR BRICK ROAD ANYMORE, AND YOU COULD MAKE IT A PLAZA.
THERE'S SO MUCH OPPORTUNITY IF WE CAN THINK BEYOND, OH MY GOSH, WHAT THE STATE'S DONE TO US. LET'S DREAM.
BY THE WAY I LEARNED THIS WEEK THAT I'M AN ENTP, WHICH IS A BIG DREAMER AND SOMEONE THAT'S PRONE TO DEBATE [LAUGHTER] I LAUGHED TOO.
NOW WE TALK ABOUT THIS EHA STUFF.
COMMISSIONER ALALI, YOU SPOKE TO THIS AT THE MEETING BEFORE THE JOINT MEETING.
THE FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS, WE GOT TO KEEP ALL OF THIS WE CAN.
I WAS REALLY EXPECTING TO HEAR ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF AIR QUALITY AND HOW THIS CAN AFFECT PEOPLE.
BUT YOUR COMMENT WAS THIS WAS REALLY EXPENSIVE.
WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THIS.
I'LL BRING YOU THE TRANSCRIPT.
THERE WAS NOT ONE MERITUS DEFENSE GIVEN FOR THIS THING.
IF YOU ACTUALLY GO READ IT, WHICH I HAVE, AND YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ARTICLES THAT ARE CITED IN THE ORIGINAL EHA REPORT.
THE EHA IS BASED ON TRAFFIC ON ROADWAYS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRID THAT EXIST IN THE CITY OF PLANO,
[01:05:02]
WE HAVE MAJOR ROADWAYS COIT, PRESTON GOING NORTH AND SOUTH NOW.WE'LL JUST STAY EAST AND WEST, CUSTER, ALMA, INDEPENDENCE.
ALL OF THESE MEET THE STANDARD OF A MAJOR ROADWAY BASED ON THEIR TRAFFIC COUNTS.
IF YOU LOOK NEXT TO THE ROADWAYS, IT'S ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITH PATIOS AND BALCONIES.
IF YOU REALLY APPLY THE EHA TO PLANO, THE WHOLE CITY IS IN EHA BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT BEING 2,000 FEET FROM THE SOURCE OF THE AIR POLLUTION.
IF YOU TAKE 2,000 FEET AND GO FROM SAY, LEGACY NORTH TO SPRING CREEK, AND FROM SPRING CREEK TO SOUTH, THE WHOLE AREA IS COVERED.
THEN WE HEAR ABOUT THESE MERV FILTERS ON APARTMENTS.
WHERE DO YOU ALL THINK THESE FILTERS ARE HAPPENING? I'VE BEEN DOING LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS OF MY LIFE.
THE PARKING GARAGES HAVE NO FILTERED AIR.
THE AIR COMES FROM THE OUTSIDE.
ALL OF THE APARTMENT UNITS, IF YOU LOOK ON THE ROOFS, THEY ALL HAVE INDIVIDUAL UNITS LIKE ARE ON YOUR SIDE YARD OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME, AND THE FILTER IS CHANGED IN A CLOSET INSIDE THE APARTMENT UNIT.
NOBODY IS HOLDING ANYBODY TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CHEAPEST AIR FILTER THAT YOU CAN BUY AND PUT IN THERE.
THERE'S NO MERV FILTER HAPPENING AT ANY MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS. I CAN ASSURE YOU.
IF WE TAKE AWAY BALCONIES, SHOULD WE ALSO TAKE AWAY SIDEWALKS? SHOULD WE SAY THERE'S NO DOGS ALLOWED? SHOULD WE HAVE WARNING LABELS ON THE WINDOWS? BECAUSE GOD FORGIVE THAT THEY OPEN THE WINDOW IF THEY'RE IN THE EHA BECAUSE THIS BAD AIR COULD COME IN.
WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE MORE LANDSCAPING, BUT THEN WE TALK ABOUT LEAD.
ONE OF THE LEAD POINTS THINGS THAT YOU GET IS FOR HAVING WATER CONSERVATIVE LANDSCAPING, WHICH MEANS ROCKS.
BUT OUR CURRENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIRES FULL IRRIGATION.
I JUST THINK THAT YOU ALL ARE TRYING REALLY HARD, AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME STUFF GETTING MISSED HERE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS WILLIAM L. CRAVENS, FOLLOWED BY COREY REINIGER.
>> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
>> MY NAME IS WILLIAM CRAVENS.
I RESIDE AT 4241 BORDEAUX, IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
I KNOW SOME OF YOU FROM PAST SPEAKING WITH YOU AND WHATNOT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE SPEED AT WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED TO PUSH THIS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SIR, COULD YOU STEP CLOSER TO THE MIC?
>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH THINGS ALONG.
THE STATE HAS COME ALONG AND THROWN SOMETHING AT US.
THEY'VE THROWN IT AT ALL OF US.
FOR THE CITY TO COME ALONG AND REVAMP THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION PLAN AND SO FORTH, MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST 45 YEARS OF DEVELOPING HERE IS JUST LIKE MY SON SAID, WHERE'S THE PUBLIC INPUT? WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT? I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT ALL THIS MEANS.
ARE THERE ANY OF YOU THAT ARE PUZZLED? I CERTAINLY AM AFTER READING ALL THAT I'VE READ ABOUT THIS.
A LOT OF IT'S NOT GOING TO COME OUT UNTIL IT'S POURED THROUGH OVER BY THE COURTS, AND LET'S HOPE IT DOESN'T GET THERE.
BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT RATHER THAN RUSH INTO MASSIVE CHANGES IN CITY POLICIES AND CITY PROGRAMS THAT WE WOULD TAKE SOME TIME, GIVE THIS THING 90 DAYS TO JUST DATE ITSELF.
IN THE MEANTIME, OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT PLANNING CAN CERTAINLY DEAL WITH THE PROJECTS THAT COME UP FROM TIME TO TIME, AND YOU FOLKS CAN DEAL WITH THEM THE WAY YOU SEE FIT.
BUT TO REVAMP EVERYTHING AFTER THE LAW WAS PASSED, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED IT ON THE 22ND OR THIRD DAY OF JULY, HERE WE ARE NOT EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST, THREE WEEKS LATER, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING AN ENTIRE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THIS SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO JUST DATE ITSELF, AND FOR EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO REACT TO IT PROPERLY.
I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
[01:10:10]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
I RESIDE AT 1814 N PLACE, PLANO, TEXAS 75074.
I WANT TO START BY THANKING ALL OF Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT SPENT IN EVALUATING TONIGHT'S PROPOSALS.
I BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO UPDATE OUR ORDINANCES TO COMPLY WITH NEW STATE LAWS, AND STAFF HAS DONE COMMENDABLE WORK IN ANALYZING LAWS AND PROPOSING THESE UPDATES.
HOWEVER, I REMAIN CONCERNED THAT ANY ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT GO BEYOND SIMPLE COMPLIANCE WILL UNNECESSARILY ADD COSTS AND DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF NEEDED HOUSING.
THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION WAS MY FIRST TIME JOINING MY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION, THE TEXAS SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS, IN AUSTIN.
WE MET WITH LAWMAKERS AND ADVOCATED FOR ISSUES IMPORTANT TO OUR PROFESSION.
WE SUPPORTED MANY OF THE ADOPTED PRO-HOUSING BILLS.
THE TEXAS ARCHITECTS POSITION STATEMENT ON HOUSING ATTAINABILITY READS, "WE ARE COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABILITY AND TO INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR ALL TEXANS.
ARCHITECTS ARE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND ADDRESS HOUSING ATTAINABILITY THROUGH INTENTIONAL DESIGN.
BILLS LIKE SB 840 ARE A RECOGNITION BY OUR STATE LEADERS THAT HOUSING IS A SERIOUS CONCERN ACROSS THE STATE.
HERE IN PLANO, WE'RE FORTUNATE TO HAVE A RECENTLY COMPLETED ANALYSIS OF OUR OWN HOUSING AND JOB SITUATION.
I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO READ THIS REPORT.
THE KEY FINDING STATES PLANO AND THE REGION AT LARGE ARE NOT CURRENTLY PRODUCING ENOUGH HOUSING TO MEET THE PROJECTED DEMAND, AND THIS DEFICIT WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON PLANO'S ECONOMIC FUTURE AS HOUSING COSTS OUTSTRIP HOUSEHOLD INCOMES.
PLANO WILL HAVE GREATER DIFFICULTY ATTRACTING NEW RESIDENTS WITH MODERATE INCOMES.
IT GOES ON TO STATE, IN PLANO, 50% OF ALL OCCUPATIONS OFFER WAGES BELOW $50,000 PER YEAR, WHILE 2% OF OCCUPATIONS OFFER WAGES ABOVE $150,000.
THIS DISPARITY CREATES AN AFFORDABILITY GAP, CHALLENGING PLANO'S REPUTATION AS A CITY ACCOMMODATING TO ALL HOUSEHOLD TYPES AND THREATENING PLANO'S AFFORDABILITY AND ATTRACTIVENESS.
MANY PLANO RESIDENTS ARE HOUSING COST-BURDENED, LIMITING THEIR ABILITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN OUR VIBRANT ECONOMY.
LAST, FOR-SALE HOUSING IS INACCESSIBLE TO ALL BUT THE MOST AFFLUENT HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS LOCKS OUT YOUNG WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES, RESULTING IN AN AGING POPULATION." AS YOU CONSIDER TONIGHT'S AGENDA, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DISPENSE WITH ANY MEASURES THAT GO BEYOND SIMPLE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
THIS INCLUDES THE MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, MANDATORY SITE AMENITIES, AND LEAD CERTIFICATION, AND ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT EQUALLY APPLIED TO ALL USES.
SUCH MEASURES SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE TIME FOR REVIEW AND WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THROUGH THE ZONING REWRITE PROCESS OR THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION.
THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THERE ARE NO FURTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE COMMENTS TO COMMISSION AND STAFF. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. [NOISE] I DO FEEL THE TIME PRESSURE THAT WE'VE WE'VE BEEN PUT UNDER AS A RESULT OF THE TIMETABLE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRETTY MUCH IMPOSED ON US.
THE BULK OF THESE STATUTES BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST.
THE CITY COULD NOT BE IN A POSITION OF BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
OUR STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT WE COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
THEREFORE, WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING BY SEPTEMBER 1ST, OR WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IF WE DIDN'T.
WE HAD TO CONSIDER NOT ONLY COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, BUT ALSO THE CONSEQUENCES THAT THE NEW ORDINANCES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT, WOULD HAVE ON THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF PLACING DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN VIEWED AS INCOMPATIBLE PLACEMENTS, AND THEREFORE, HAVING TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF
[01:15:03]
JUXTAPOSITION BETWEEN THESE NEW HOUSING LOCATIONS AND AREAS WHERE THEY WERE NOT TRADITIONALLY ALLOWED.WE HAVE HAD TO DO THAT IN A SHORT TIME.
THIS IS NOT THE CITY'S FAULT, IT'S NOT THE STAFF'S FAULT.
THE STAFF ARE ONLY DOING WHAT THEY HAD TO DO. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT.
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING WERE DRAFTED BY TEAMS OF PEOPLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, REVIEWED OVER SEVERAL LAYERS OF APPROVAL, I ASSUME, REVIEWED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
THESE PEOPLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS.
THEY ARE EXPERIENCED, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THE PEOPLE IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT ARE LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THEY ARE EXPERIENCED AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN POSSIBLY SIT HERE TONIGHT AND START TRYING TO PARSE THROUGH PROVISION BY PROVISION, CLAUSE BY CLAUSE, SUBCLAUSE BY SUBCLAUSE OF 300 PAGES OF MATERIAL AND TRY TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.
THINGS MAY POP UP THAT MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT.
WE MAY NEED TO TWEAK THESE ORDINANCES DOWN THE ROAD. IT'S INEVITABLE.
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, OR NEW INTERPRETATIONS MAY BE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT MAY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT I RECALL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, FORMER COMMISSIONER KERRY, ON THIS COMMISSION, MADE A COMMENT IN A PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD IS THE PERFECT.
I THINK THAT THE MATERIAL WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH IS GOOD.
I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S GOOD.
I THINK THE THING FOR US TO DO IS PASS IT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TWEAK IT LATER IF WE MUST. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. VICE CHAIR, OLLEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ACTING CHAIR? I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF SAID, AND ALSO AGAIN, APPLAUD THE SLIGHT WINDOW THE STAFF HAS HAD TO THREAD TO ENSURE THAT OUR FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
OUR VERY CLOSE SECOND OBLIGATION IS TO ENSURE THAT THE SWEAT, TEARS, EFFORT, AND CURRENCY THAT THE CITY AS A WHOLE PUT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHERE THEY MADE THEIR VOICE VERY WELL KNOWN AS TO WHAT KIND OF CITY WE WERE LOOKING TO BRING TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT 50 YEARS OR SO, IS HONORED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
I ACTUALLY AGREE, AND I THINK I AGREED WITH COUNCILMAN KEHR, THAT SB 840 ACTUALLY, IN SOME WAYS, DOES SOMETHING THAT ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME, I HAVE BEEN A PROPONENT OF, WHICH IS DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK.
I ALSO HAVE TO SIT IN THIS SEAT AND ENSURE THAT WHEN WE BRING IN THAT DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK, IT IS HELD TO A STANDARD THAT ANY SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPANT OR ANY OTHER RESIDENT OF PLANO SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE, WHICH TIES BACK TO MY STATEMENT, THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE WHERE WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF EFFORT, MONEY ON THINGS, LIKE THE EHA, OTHER STUDIES, OTHER POLICIES, A LOT OF WORK.
IT WOULD BE SILLY TO THROW THAT ALL AWAY.
LIKE COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF HINTED AT, I HAVE LED MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR PLANNING PROJECTS.
THE ONE THING THAT WE HATE IS NO CLEAR ROADMAP.
THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR AT SEPTEMBER 1ST GAVE US ESSENTIALLY, AND THIS IS THE WAY I READ IT, TWO CHOICES; WE EITHER GIVE DEVELOPERS,
[01:20:03]
RESIDENTS SOME CLARITY ON HOW WE WILL IMPLEMENT AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE TO THE STATE LAW, OR WE DON'T AND THEN IT BECOMES A BIT OF A VOID AND A VACUUM, WHICH, IN ANY PLANNING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, DOES NOT SERVE ANYBODY WELL.I THINK THE WAY THE STAFF HAS WRITTEN, MOST OF THE AMENDMENTS, ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THEY'VE PUT BEFORE US, SUPPORTS VERY LARGELY THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR PLANO 2050.
THE ONE THAT JUMPED OUT TO ME, WHICH I TAKE TO HEART IS THAT THE PLAN, AND I THINK THIS BODY WILL BUILD ON PLANO'S STRONG HISTORY OF THOUGHTFUL PLANNING GUIDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT, WHERE IT IS SAFE, ATTRACTIVE, APPROPRIATE, CONVENIENT, AND CONTRIBUTES TO A VARIETY OF HOUSING EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPECTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
I THINK, LIKE, AGAIN, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF SAID, DID WE THREAD THAT NEEDLE PERFECTLY? NO, BUT IT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO WORK ON.
AS REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT CHANGES, AND AS THE CITY'S NEEDS CHANGES, I BELIEVE PLANO HAS SHOWN THE ABILITY AND THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADAPT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE HITTING BOTH TARGETS, NOT PRECISELY, BUT ACCURATELY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER TONG.
I JUST WANT TO PUT A FEW COMMENTS IN THAT YES, WE'RE UNDER THE GUN.
WE HAVE TO GET THIS OUT BY SEPTEMBER 1ST.
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WE WISH WE HAD MORE TIME.
WE WISH WE COULD DO A MAYBE EVEN BETTER JOB, BUT I THINK WHAT THE STAFF HAS DONE IS ALREADY TREMENDOUS, IS VERY GOOD, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, BUT WE WILL, I GUESS, GET THEM OUT, LIKE, IMPROVE.
HOPEFULLY, THERE'S STILL LIKE TWO, THREE WEEKS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST THAT WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENT ON.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE HERE.
I AM A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL MYSELF.
I FACE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THIS IS NOT JUST PLANO, THIS IS NOT JUST TEXAS; THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE.
EVERYBODY IS FACING AFFORDABILITY PROBLEMS. IS THE INCREASED LAND VALUES, INCREASED INFLATION, INCREASED INTEREST RATE, INCREASED LABOR MATERIAL COSTS.
COMPARED TO ALL THESE VALUES, REQUIRING A FEW ENVIRONMENTAL FILTERS OR HOUSE REQUIREMENTS ARE VERY INSIGNIFICANT.
>> WE WISH OUR CITY CAN HAVE A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL OUR MAYBE LABORS TO LIVE CLOSE BY, MAYBE SOME LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO MOVE IN.
BUT WE DO NOT DICTATE THE PRICES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE MARKET, IF THERE'S A DEMAND, THE PRICES WILL GO UP.
IF WE THINK PLANO IS AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE, PEOPLE ARE STILL MOVING IN, PEOPLE WON'T HAVE MORE HOUSING IN PLANO, THEY WANT TO MOVE IN.
THE DEMAND THAT WILL ACTUALLY CAUSE THE PRICE TO GO UP IS NOT EVEN LIKE HOW MUCH THE CITY IS REQUIRING TO BUILD.
THAT IS REALLY INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO OTHER COSTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I HEAR YOU ALL AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING HERE AND PROVIDING THE COMMENTS, AND WE TRY OUR BEST.
[01:25:01]
I GUESS THE STAFF MEMBERS, THE CITY AND OUR COMMISSION REALLY TRY TO ACCOMMODATE AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WANT OUR CITIZENS TO LIVE HERE AND BE HAPPY WITH WHAT WE PROVIDE.WE WANT OUR CITY TO BE ATTRACTIVE, WE WANT OUR CITY TO BE LIVABLE AND GET MORE PEOPLE.
THE MORE PEOPLE MOVING IN, THE MORE EXPENSIVE OUR LAND OR HOUSING WILL BECOME.
RIGHT NOW, THE ISSUE WE'RE ADDRESSING IS TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW STATE LAW.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BENDER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST WANTED TO START OFF.
I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF DID A GREAT JOB, SUMMARIZING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE FACE.
WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
BUT I SEE THIS AS OPPORTUNITY AND A CALL TO ACTION BY THE CITY.
MY THOUGHT IS RATHER THAN SITTING BACK AND WAITING FOR SOMETHING UNFORTUNATE TO HAPPEN OR A DEVELOPMENT OCCUR THAT MAYBE DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE LAID OUT AND THAT WE WORK VERY HARD TO COMPLY WITH.
I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE NEVER BEFORE TO WORK WITH LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS SO THAT WE CAN COLLABORATIVELY WORK TOGETHER ON DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT TAKES A DIFFERENT STRATEGY AND A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN I THINK WE HAVE TAKEN PREVIOUSLY.
THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS TRY TO DO THAT, BUT I THINK BECAUSE OF WHAT THE STATE HAS DONE WITH SOME OF THESE NEW LAWS, IT REALLY REQUIRES US TO CHANGE GEARS.
I THINK IF WE DO THAT IN A PROACTIVE WAY, WHETHER IT'S HIRING SOME REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS APPOINTING SOME PROJECT MANAGERS WITHIN THE CITY TO SPECIFICALLY WORK ON THAT AND MY EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS, IF YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN.
I THINK IF WE WORK PROACTIVELY, GOOD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO THE CITY.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB AS A TEAM WORKING WITH THE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION AS COMMISSIONER AWE STATED, I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADOPT, AND THEN WE CAN TWEAK AS NECESSARY AS WE GO DOWN THE ROAD.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, OR ACTING COMMISSIONER.
JUST TO REITERATE AND SUMMARIZE, EVERYBODY'S TOUCHED ON PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
BUT ULTIMATELY, I FEEL LIKE I KNOW WE'VE MET A LOT IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND REALLY PUT IN A LOT OF EFFORT IN IT, FROM THE COMMISSION, FROM THE STAFF.
THIS ISN'T JUST SOMETHING WE'RE FLYING BY THE SEAT OF OUR PANTS ON.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN PUT INTO IT, A LOT OF THOUGHT HAS BEEN INTO IT.
WE DO SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY.
I'VE EVEN BROUGHT UP THAT WE SHOULD EMBRACE THE LAW AND EMBRACE IT AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT A VERY POSITIVE THING, AND NOT BE SCARED OF WHAT THE STATE HAS PASSED.
HOWEVER, IF WE JUST STUCK OUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND CHOSE TO DO NOTHING, THAT WOULD BE AN INJUSTICE TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, TO THE RESIDENTS, THAT WE MUST DO SOMETHING.
WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE, PUT A ROADMAP IN PLACE INSTEAD OF THIS AMBIGUOUS THAT DOES NOT REALLY COMPLY ANY LONGER.
THEN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COULD HAPPEN AND WHAT IS TO COME.
BY PUTTING THIS INTO PLACE AT LEAST SOMETHING AN INITIAL ROAD MAP, FOR SAY, ALLOWS US TO DEFINE AN ORDINANCE THAT CAN AT LEAST BE COMPLIANT WITH STATE AND WITH AN ATTEMPT TO STILL COMPLY WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ULTIMATELY, THAT'S THE EXPECTATION.
WE ALL KNOW THAT VERY LIKELY THERE WILL BE TWEAKS, AS EVERYBODY'S TALKED ABOUT.
WE DO EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE BECAUSE THIS WAS PUT TOGETHER SO QUICKLY, BUT WE COULDN'T JUST DO NOTHING.
[01:30:01]
THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN THING I WANTED TO DO, BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN.WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY.
I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH I KNOW CITY COUNCIL AND EVERYBODY SOME OF THEM ARE LOOKING AT WORKING WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THAT YOU CAN TALK ABOUT TIFFS AND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE COMING INTO PLAY AT SOME POINT SO THAT THERE'S SOME INCENTIVES.
IT IS QUICK, BUT THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT SO WE CAN AGAIN CONTINUE TO BE A PARTNER WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE TO MAKE PLANO GREAT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. VICE CHAIR ALI.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER UP A MOTION IF YOU'RE CLOSED, PLEASE.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1A, ZONING CASE 2025 007.
WE COULDN'T MAKE ALL THREE MOTIONS AT THE SAME TIME?
>> WE'LL HAVE THREE SEPARATE, PLEASE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ALI, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. THE VOTE IS 7-0.
CHAIR RATLIFF IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1B, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2025-001.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER ALI, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1C, STREET DESIGN STANDARDS AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS OF STREET DESIGN STANDARDS PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. THE VOTE ON THAT IS 7-0.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS?
>> OH, YES. WE WILL TAKE A PAUSE AND COMPLETE THE FINDINGS FORMS BEFORE WE GAVEL OUT.
[01:39:10]
YEAH.[01:40:56]
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS FOR COMPLETING YOUR FINDINGS FORMS AND YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME THIS EVENING.WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US, I WILL ADJOURN 7:58 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.